The other issue I noticed with Verstappen is that it to me was very unfair in the manner he gave the position back to Sainz. So first of all, Verstappen gains a massive advantage. Then, he gives the place back to Sainz on the longest striate of the year. Lifted off just enough for Sainz to just about get ahead then Instantly back on the power and used DRS to get back at him.

Yeah I noticed that too. Seemed very simular to the infamous Hamilton incident from the 2008 Spa GP, where after the race Hamilton was penalised by 20secs and a rule "clarification" was made to suggest that if you give a place back, you can't then retake for a corner or two? Nobody else seemed to care, including Sainz, so I guess it was somewhow different?

He was ahead of Sainz when he went off. He didn't give the place back to Sainz because he didn't have to. He was a air chunk ahead when he cut the corner and gave all the time back and more. No driver has ever been penalised for anything remotely like that in the past. Sainz overtook he wasn't let through.

Drivers don't get penalised but are not allowed to do that repeatedly even if they are in front.

still dont understand why so many are completely blaming verstappen. yes you can argue he was moving around but he and many others have done the same many times, and its wasnt much movement really. also look at it again. at no point was ric completely outside of the line of max' car. he didnt go far enough outside or inside he was just throwing a semi dummy which was half arsed. therefore even if max hadnt moved back he was braking on a dirty shallow entry and max' left rear would have been an obstacle still. he may have gone further to the inside but as it was dirty with marbles etc he probably would have taken them both out at the apex. he even said he braked too late. yes he may have lost downforce as max moved across which contributed to the lock up, but i still think he just braked too late against a driver he should have known would be pushing the limits of defending.

now having said that i am no fan of max, have critisised him in the past and think he is too aggressive. it will cost him dearly if he doesnt change. he has to accept a part of the blame for this one but i dont think its the worst thing he has done by a long shot. magnussen was far worse.

Hard to do when the guy in front is moving I guess?

Plus, there are no rules as to how "arsed" a dummy has to be. Max defended right, then defended left. He bought the dummy, and ended up getting "full-arsed".

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

I think the reason so many are blaming Max is that we feel that he intentionally put his car in a sure to be hit position in front of a fast approaching car. He didn't give Ric any place to go, he should have known better. If Ric had been approaching Hamilton, or Kimi, or Bottas or any of the more experienced drivers, I bet there wouldn't have been a crash and Ric would have got past.

still dont understand why so many are completely blaming verstappen. yes you can argue he was moving around but he and many others have done the same many times, and its wasnt much movement really. also look at it again. at no point was ric completely outside of the line of max' car. he didnt go far enough outside or inside he was just throwing a semi dummy which was half arsed. therefore even if max hadnt moved back he was braking on a dirty shallow entry and max' left rear would have been an obstacle still. he may have gone further to the inside but as it was dirty with marbles etc he probably would have taken them both out at the apex. he even said he braked too late. yes he may have lost downforce as max moved across which contributed to the lock up, but i still think he just braked too late against a driver he should have known would be pushing the limits of defending.

now having said that i am no fan of max, have critisised him in the past and think he is too aggressive. it will cost him dearly if he doesnt change. he has to accept a part of the blame for this one but i dont think its the worst thing he has done by a long shot. magnussen was far worse.

Hard to do when the guy in front is moving I guess?

Plus, there are no rules as to how "arsed" a dummy has to be. Max defended right, then defended left. He bought the dummy, and ended up getting "full-arsed".

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

Going another car's width to the right... What good would that have done?

He had already passed Max successfully round the outside, which made feinting to do so again, while switching to the uncovered inside so much more sensible. But putting his car another car's width further to the right before switching, would have meant Max also moving further to the right before Dan could dive for the inside, and both would again be braking. There's only so much distance, even on a straight the length of this one.

So, no, it would not have been more clear-cut.

As for Dan's demeanour, I can't comment on that, as I didn't see it. I am puzzled though, as to his reasons for accepting blame at all. The only reason I can think of that might explain his statement, is that he had not yet been able to study all the footage.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I was surprised to read that Both Riciardo and Max has been reprimanded. I don't quite see what Riciardo's done wrong. I was expecting a very stern warning at the very least with a suspended race ban.

To me, looking at reports of the stewards findings, they say " The stewards ruled that while Verstappen made "two moves" in front of Ricciardo and the "incident had its origins in the moves", they decided both were "relatively minor" on the Dutchman's part.

Ricciardo also "admitted he left his move to overtake on the left too late" and therefore the judging panel ruled his actions "also contributed to the incident".

To me this reads that while the stewards found Verstappen guilty of moving, Ricciardo, for all intents and purposes, went into bat for Verstappen saying he was partly to blame for the accident as well so the stewards decided to give him a slap too.

If that is the case, I wonder what compulsion there was for Ricciardo to say that and would have happened if he'd kept quiet.

Clearly Ricciardo was told to say that so Verstappen would not get a grid penalty for the next race.

You could very well be correct. And that does mean Ricciardo was lying if he was told to say it. He could also believe there is some truth in him playing a part. To some extent, there is alway some complicity for both drivers.

Driver1: "Why did you hit me, I was simply following the car in front under safety car!"Driver2: "It is your fault too...if you were not there I would not have hit you!"

The other issue I noticed with Verstappen is that it to me was very unfair in the manner he gave the position back to Sainz. So first of all, Verstappen gains a massive advantage. Then, he gives the place back to Sainz on the longest striate of the year. Lifted off just enough for Sainz to just about get ahead then Instantly back on the power and used DRS to get back at him.

Yeah I noticed that too. Seemed very simular to the infamous Hamilton incident from the 2008 Spa GP, where after the race Hamilton was penalised by 20secs and a rule "clarification" was made to suggest that if you give a place back, you can't then retake for a corner or two? Nobody else seemed to care, including Sainz, so I guess it was somewhow different?

He was ahead of Sainz when he went off. He didn't give the place back to Sainz because he didn't have to. He was a air chunk ahead when he cut the corner and gave all the time back and more. No driver has ever been penalised for anything remotely like that in the past. Sainz overtook he wasn't let through.

Drivers don't get penalised but are not allowed to do that repeatedly even if they are in front.

But on this occasion he locked up skipped the corner and ended up losing time because of it. A bit unfair to add to the list of things the stewards "let him get away with". They let all drivers drivers get away with it in those circumstances.

But on this occasion he locked up skipped the corner and ended up losing time because of it. A bit unfair to add to the list of things the stewards "let him get away with". They let all drivers drivers get away with it in those circumstances.

I don't understand the semantics of locking up and then turning in before the actual corner, normally you overshoot the corner.

still dont understand why so many are completely blaming verstappen. yes you can argue he was moving around but he and many others have done the same many times, and its wasnt much movement really. also look at it again. at no point was ric completely outside of the line of max' car. he didnt go far enough outside or inside he was just throwing a semi dummy which was half arsed. therefore even if max hadnt moved back he was braking on a dirty shallow entry and max' left rear would have been an obstacle still. he may have gone further to the inside but as it was dirty with marbles etc he probably would have taken them both out at the apex. he even said he braked too late. yes he may have lost downforce as max moved across which contributed to the lock up, but i still think he just braked too late against a driver he should have known would be pushing the limits of defending.

now having said that i am no fan of max, have critisised him in the past and think he is too aggressive. it will cost him dearly if he doesnt change. he has to accept a part of the blame for this one but i dont think its the worst thing he has done by a long shot. magnussen was far worse.

Hard to do when the guy in front is moving I guess?

Plus, there are no rules as to how "arsed" a dummy has to be. Max defended right, then defended left. He bought the dummy, and ended up getting "full-arsed".

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

Going another car's width to the right... What good would that have done?

He had already passed Max successfully round the outside, which made feinting to do so again, while switching to the uncovered inside so much more sensible. But putting his car another car's width further to the right before switching, would have meant Max also moving further to the right before Dan could dive for the inside, and both would again be braking. There's only so much distance, even on a straight the length of this one.

So, no, it would not have been more clear-cut.

As for Dan's demeanour, I can't comment on that, as I didn't see it. I am puzzled though, as to his reasons for accepting blame at all. The only reason I can think of that might explain his statement, is that he had not yet been able to study all the footage.

so your saying if dan moves another car width right and max covers by doing the same, and then both move back again that wouldnt have been more clear cut? it my view that would be a clear double move and dangerous because of the amount of movement involved. rather then dan making a slight move to the right and max only weaving by half a cars width, because he wasnt drawn out to cover right very much, resulting in what looked to me like a half dummy and max only having to deviate from his original line by a small amount.

yes it may be that in theory dan didnt have enough straight to pull this extra movement off, but if so he shouldnt have tried the move he did at that moment against a very strong defender of position whether you agree with max' techniques or not.

its similar in a way to vettel in singapore. yes vettel did what you could call a legitimate move but in that instance and because it did cause a crash it was his fault. although its not all dans fault here he has locked his brakes and gone into the back of someone.

Verstappen might be finished by the end of the season or next if he carries on like this. He may be fast some days but if you aren't consistently finishing races somebody else comes along who can drive fast and finish. Charles Leclerc did amazing for such a new F1 driver. Probably deserves a top seat at Ferrari if he carries on like that.

Plus, there are no rules as to how "arsed" a dummy has to be. Max defended right, then defended left. He bought the dummy, and ended up getting "full-arsed".

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

Going another car's width to the right... What good would that have done?

He had already passed Max successfully round the outside, which made feinting to do so again, while switching to the uncovered inside so much more sensible. But putting his car another car's width further to the right before switching, would have meant Max also moving further to the right before Dan could dive for the inside, and both would again be braking. There's only so much distance, even on a straight the length of this one.

So, no, it would not have been more clear-cut.

As for Dan's demeanour, I can't comment on that, as I didn't see it. I am puzzled though, as to his reasons for accepting blame at all. The only reason I can think of that might explain his statement, is that he had not yet been able to study all the footage.

so your saying if dan moves another car width right and max covers by doing the same, and then both move back again that wouldnt have been more clear cut? it my view that would be a clear double move and dangerous because of the amount of movement involved. rather then dan making a slight move to the right and max only weaving by half a cars width, because he wasnt drawn out to cover right very much, resulting in what looked to me like a half dummy and max only having to deviate from his original line by a small amount.

yes it may be that in theory dan didnt have enough straight to pull this extra movement off, but if so he shouldnt have tried the move he did at that moment against a very strong defender of position whether you agree with max' techniques or not.

its similar in a way to vettel in singapore. yes vettel did what you could call a legitimate move but in that instance and because it did cause a crash it was his fault. although its not all dans fault here he has locked his brakes and gone into the back of someone.

I'm sorry, but the way you present this sounds like you put most of the blame on Dan; the bold should read that "he ran to the back of someone moving twice, which is not allowed in the rules".

Putting most of the blame on Dan is absurd, even with my dislike of the divebombs that Dan sometimes makes, this overtake (if allowed) wouldn't need a divebomb, as it seems to me that he had the speed to complete it cleanly. He wouldn't have ran in the back of Max if only Max had "always leave e-space" and not moved as he should have. Can't be more clear cut than that

Verstappen might be finished by the end of the season or next if he carries on like this. He may be fast some days but if you aren't consistently finishing races somebody else comes along who can drive fast and finish. Charles Leclerc did amazing for such a new F1 driver. Probably deserves a top seat at Ferrari if he carries on like that.

I doubt he will be finished by the end of the season; his talent is real. But seeing how difficult it is for Red Bull to harvest results from their efforts for him, he may well be condemned to stay with them until he either gets them the championship(s), or fades into a supporting role for someone who does.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

But on this occasion he locked up skipped the corner and ended up losing time because of it. A bit unfair to add to the list of things the stewards "let him get away with". They let all drivers drivers get away with it in those circumstances.

I don't understand the semantics of locking up and then turning in before the actual corner, normally you overshoot the corner.

Plus, there are no rules as to how "arsed" a dummy has to be. Max defended right, then defended left. He bought the dummy, and ended up getting "full-arsed".

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

Going another car's width to the right... What good would that have done?

He had already passed Max successfully round the outside, which made feinting to do so again, while switching to the uncovered inside so much more sensible. But putting his car another car's width further to the right before switching, would have meant Max also moving further to the right before Dan could dive for the inside, and both would again be braking. There's only so much distance, even on a straight the length of this one.

So, no, it would not have been more clear-cut.

As for Dan's demeanour, I can't comment on that, as I didn't see it. I am puzzled though, as to his reasons for accepting blame at all. The only reason I can think of that might explain his statement, is that he had not yet been able to study all the footage.

so your saying if dan moves another car width right and max covers by doing the same, and then both move back again that wouldnt have been more clear cut? it my view that would be a clear double move and dangerous because of the amount of movement involved. rather then dan making a slight move to the right and max only weaving by half a cars width, because he wasnt drawn out to cover right very much, resulting in what looked to me like a half dummy and max only having to deviate from his original line by a small amount.

yes it may be that in theory dan didnt have enough straight to pull this extra movement off, but if so he shouldnt have tried the move he did at that moment against a very strong defender of position whether you agree with max' techniques or not.

its similar in a way to vettel in singapore. yes vettel did what you could call a legitimate move but in that instance and because it did cause a crash it was his fault. although its not all dans fault here he has locked his brakes and gone into the back of someone.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but the way you present this sounds like you put most of the blame on Dan; the bold should read that "he ran to the back of someone moving twice, which is not allowed in the rules".

Putting most of the blame on Dan is absurd, even with my dislike of the divebombs that Dan sometimes makes, this overtake (if allowed) wouldn't need a divebomb, as it seems to me that he had the speed to complete it cleanly. He wouldn't have ran in the back of Max if only Max had "always leave e-space" and not moved as he should have. Can't be more clear cut than that

i dont think ric was more to blame and i havent said that, but i also dont think he is blameless like many others. do i think max should have moved back across, no. do i think max was always going to do that given how he drives, yes. does that make it right, no. do i think ric should have tried that move there and then, no.[/quote]

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

i dont actually know why ive done multiple posts defending max cos i dont really like him and i do like ric. just saying what i see but we all see it differently i suppose.

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

Going another car's width to the right... What good would that have done?

He had already passed Max successfully round the outside, which made feinting to do so again, while switching to the uncovered inside so much more sensible. But putting his car another car's width further to the right before switching, would have meant Max also moving further to the right before Dan could dive for the inside, and both would again be braking. There's only so much distance, even on a straight the length of this one.

So, no, it would not have been more clear-cut.

As for Dan's demeanour, I can't comment on that, as I didn't see it. I am puzzled though, as to his reasons for accepting blame at all. The only reason I can think of that might explain his statement, is that he had not yet been able to study all the footage.

so your saying if dan moves another car width right and max covers by doing the same, and then both move back again that wouldnt have been more clear cut? it my view that would be a clear double move and dangerous because of the amount of movement involved. rather then dan making a slight move to the right and max only weaving by half a cars width, because he wasnt drawn out to cover right very much, resulting in what looked to me like a half dummy and max only having to deviate from his original line by a small amount.

yes it may be that in theory dan didnt have enough straight to pull this extra movement off, but if so he shouldnt have tried the move he did at that moment against a very strong defender of position whether you agree with max' techniques or not.

its similar in a way to vettel in singapore. yes vettel did what you could call a legitimate move but in that instance and because it did cause a crash it was his fault. although its not all dans fault here he has locked his brakes and gone into the back of someone.

That's a strange reasoning you follow there. Ricciardo should have made a wider move, so that Verstappen's double move would have been clearer... What makes you think it wasn't clear enough? Both Race Control and the Stewards saw it.

And why would Ricciardo be unwise to use anything les than a gap 2 cars wide? Before Verstappen realized he was going to be passed again, the gap to his left was wide enough for Ricciardo's car with room to spare to the white line.

There's a reason for the rule that forbids two defensive moves; safety. Somebody needs to take the time to explain this to Verstappen - and a few others currently making a mess of F1.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

I think the only damage was to his tires; which he caused himself with that spin turn. Of course the only reason he had to do the spin turn was because Max spun him around...

Honestly, I think the penalty was warranted and it was sufficient. The biggest punishment that Max faced was seeing his teammate win from a worse position than he was in. Just a little bit of patience and Max would have won this race. Ultimately, he will probably learn these lessons in this manner; by losing out in the points and being forced to acknowledge that what he's doing isn't optimal.

Him losing points isn't enough punishment. What about the other drivers who've done nothing wrong whose races he keeps ruining? Should they be patient until Max realises he's doing wrong while he keeps avoiding punishment?

no there are no rules but it my view it would have been much more clear cut if ric had moved another car width to the right (earlier), with max following, then any dive down the inside would have given him more room or if max then defended aggressively it would have been much more blatant it was over aggressive double move from max.

im not having a go at ric in general because i think its a racing incident and he was probably forced into it because of how max drives, but in my view if you lock up and go into the back of someone like that you have to take a good portion of the blame. his demeanour after suggested to me he thought he had made an error.

Going another car's width to the right... What good would that have done?

He had already passed Max successfully round the outside, which made feinting to do so again, while switching to the uncovered inside so much more sensible. But putting his car another car's width further to the right before switching, would have meant Max also moving further to the right before Dan could dive for the inside, and both would again be braking. There's only so much distance, even on a straight the length of this one.

So, no, it would not have been more clear-cut.

As for Dan's demeanour, I can't comment on that, as I didn't see it. I am puzzled though, as to his reasons for accepting blame at all. The only reason I can think of that might explain his statement, is that he had not yet been able to study all the footage.

so your saying if dan moves another car width right and max covers by doing the same, and then both move back again that wouldnt have been more clear cut? it my view that would be a clear double move and dangerous because of the amount of movement involved. rather then dan making a slight move to the right and max only weaving by half a cars width, because he wasnt drawn out to cover right very much, resulting in what looked to me like a half dummy and max only having to deviate from his original line by a small amount.

yes it may be that in theory dan didnt have enough straight to pull this extra movement off, but if so he shouldnt have tried the move he did at that moment against a very strong defender of position whether you agree with max' techniques or not.

its similar in a way to vettel in singapore. yes vettel did what you could call a legitimate move but in that instance and because it did cause a crash it was his fault. although its not all dans fault here he has locked his brakes and gone into the back of someone.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but the way you present this sounds like you put most of the blame on Dan; the bold should read that "he ran to the back of someone moving twice, which is not allowed in the rules".

Putting most of the blame on Dan is absurd, even with my dislike of the divebombs that Dan sometimes makes, this overtake (if allowed) wouldn't need a divebomb, as it seems to me that he had the speed to complete it cleanly. He wouldn't have ran in the back of Max if only Max had "always leave e-space" and not moved as he should have. Can't be more clear cut than that

i dont think ric was more to blame and i havent said that, but i also dont think he is blameless like many others. do i think max should have moved back across, no. do i think max was always going to do that given how he drives, yes. does that make it right, no. do i think ric should have tried that move there and then, no.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

i dont actually know why ive done multiple posts defending max cos i dont really like him and i do like ric. just saying what i see but we all see it differently i suppose.

Fair enough, your post just came across as such, to me at least, that you put the blame mostly on Dan.

The move sticking or not is not the debate here, as we will never find out. He was taken out before he had a chance to go past Max.

I also wasn't questioning your liking to either of the drivers, we are grown ups that can stay unbiased. Well, mostly!

No, what I was saying is this; can you say with certainty that he was going to overshoot the corner? If you ask me, Dan is the master of later braking, so much that it has resulted in this divebomb mentality that I disagree with. But it doesn't take it from him, he has shown time and again that he can brake late and take the corner without collecting the other car.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

What's even worse is Horner saying that there is equal apportion of blame between his two drivers. Can't believe he is saying that with a straight face when one of the two drivers clearly made an illegal move...

What's even worse is Horner saying that there is equal apportion of blame between his two drivers. Can't believe he is saying that with a straight face when one of the two drivers clearly made an illegal move...

I read it as

Quote:

there is no blame apportioned to either side

. I'm not sure whether that means they both are equally responsible, or whether he is just not that good at Ronspeak.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

But on this occasion he locked up skipped the corner and ended up losing time because of it. A bit unfair to add to the list of things the stewards "let him get away with". They let all drivers drivers get away with it in those circumstances.

What's even worse is Horner saying that there is equal apportion of blame between his two drivers. Can't believe he is saying that with a straight face when one of the two drivers clearly made an illegal move...

I read it as

Quote:

there is no blame apportioned to either side

. I'm not sure whether that means they both are equally responsible, or whether he is just not that good at Ronspeak.

Not sure either. But his quote is this:

Christian Horner, Team Principal

“It was a really frustrating race for the Team today. After some hard racing between the two drivers throughout the Grand Prix, unfortunately, contact was made after the pitstop resulting in the retirement of both cars. Obviously, for the Team it is hugely disappointing. We allow our drivers to race wheel-to-wheel, which they have done to great effect during the last two years. Unfortunately, today has happened and there is no blame apportioned to either side. It is hugely frustrating for the Team and the drivers have apologised. The most important thing is to learn from today and ensure that we avoid a repeat situation.”

But on this occasion he locked up skipped the corner and ended up losing time because of it. A bit unfair to add to the list of things the stewards "let him get away with". They let all drivers drivers get away with it in those circumstances.

I don't understand the semantics of locking up and then turning in before the actual corner, normally you overshoot the corner.

I think the only damage was to his tires; which he caused himself with that spin turn. Of course the only reason he had to do the spin turn was because Max spun him around...

Honestly, I think the penalty was warranted and it was sufficient. The biggest punishment that Max faced was seeing his teammate win from a worse position than he was in. Just a little bit of patience and Max would have won this race. Ultimately, he will probably learn these lessons in this manner; by losing out in the points and being forced to acknowledge that what he's doing isn't optimal.

Him losing points isn't enough punishment. What about the other drivers who've done nothing wrong whose races he keeps ruining? Should they be patient until Max realises he's doing wrong while he keeps avoiding punishment?

I think the only damage was to his tires; which he caused himself with that spin turn. Of course the only reason he had to do the spin turn was because Max spun him around...

Honestly, I think the penalty was warranted and it was sufficient. The biggest punishment that Max faced was seeing his teammate win from a worse position than he was in. Just a little bit of patience and Max would have won this race. Ultimately, he will probably learn these lessons in this manner; by losing out in the points and being forced to acknowledge that what he's doing isn't optimal.

Him losing points isn't enough punishment. What about the other drivers who've done nothing wrong whose races he keeps ruining? Should they be patient until Max realises he's doing wrong while he keeps avoiding punishment?

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

What's even worse is Horner saying that there is equal apportion of blame between his two drivers. Can't believe he is saying that with a straight face when one of the two drivers clearly made an illegal move...

He's protecting Verstappen against getting a grid penalty for the next race like Sirotkin has received, Sirotkin wasn't even allowed to explain himself, the double standard and wish not to penalise Verstappen by the stewards is so obvious.

What's even worse is Horner saying that there is equal apportion of blame between his two drivers. Can't believe he is saying that with a straight face when one of the two drivers clearly made an illegal move...

I read it as

Quote:

there is no blame apportioned to either side

. I'm not sure whether that means they both are equally responsible, or whether he is just not that good at Ronspeak.

Not sure either. But his quote is this:

Christian Horner, Team Principal

“It was a really frustrating race for the Team today. After some hard racing between the two drivers throughout the Grand Prix, unfortunately, contact was made after the pitstop resulting in the retirement of both cars. Obviously, for the Team it is hugely disappointing. We allow our drivers to race wheel-to-wheel, which they have done to great effect during the last two years. Unfortunately, today has happened and there is no blame apportioned to either side. It is hugely frustrating for the Team and the drivers have apologised. The most important thing is to learn from today and ensure that we avoid a repeat situation.”

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

What's even worse is Horner saying that there is equal apportion of blame between his two drivers. Can't believe he is saying that with a straight face when one of the two drivers clearly made an illegal move...

He's protecting Verstappen against getting a grid penalty for the next race like Sirotkin has received, Sirotkin wasn't even allowed to explain himself, the double standard and wish not to penalise Verstappen by the stewards is so obvious.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

But this is allowed in the rules, the only time that a driver can change direction after a defensive move is to go back to take the corner. Max didn't do that, he went towards the inside.

i do think that even if max had not moved back across that ric would have done incredibly well not to lock up and end up collecting max at the apex. that is why is feel he has to take some blame because the move wasnt on in my view regardless of max' movements.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

Quote:

But this is allowed in the rules, the only time that a driver can change direction after a defensive move is to go back to take the corner. Max didn't do that, he went towards the inside.

well ill take your word for that. i didnt know it was specifically allowed, rather then just not punished.

so what if you made this move back to the racing line just infront of the guy behind and it disrupts him and his downforce and he ends up hitting the car infront under braking. who is to blame then?

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

Quote:

But this is allowed in the rules, the only time that a driver can change direction after a defensive move is to go back to take the corner. Max didn't do that, he went towards the inside.

well ill take your word for that. i didnt know it was specifically allowed, rather then just not punished.

so what if you made this move back to the racing line just infront of the guy behind and it disrupts him and his downforce and he ends up hitting the car infront under braking. who is to blame then?

As far as I remember, the rule goes something like: "Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."

You can get back on the normal racing line in order to take the corner, leaving enough space for the other car.

In this case, Max wasn't getting back in the racing line, he went on the inside line, not outside, which is the normal line to take the corner.

Well he wasn't locking up until Max decided to kill Ricciardo's downforce.

Ricciardo's overtake may well have come to nothing, but the reason there was an accident wasn't the overtake attempt. It was Max's decision he would make two defensive moves.

This.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

Quote:

But this is allowed in the rules, the only time that a driver can change direction after a defensive move is to go back to take the corner. Max didn't do that, he went towards the inside.

well ill take your word for that. i didnt know it was specifically allowed, rather then just not punished.

so what if you made this move back to the racing line just infront of the guy behind and it disrupts him and his downforce and he ends up hitting the car infront under braking. who is to blame then?

Quote:

As far as I remember, the rule goes something like: "Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."

You can get back on the normal racing line in order to take the corner, leaving enough space for the other car.

In this case, Max wasn't getting back in the racing line, he went on the inside line, not outside, which is the normal line to take the corner.

ah yes i do remember now after cars being forced off track by cars moving back over. ok well in that case there are plenty of times where drivers havent left a car width when moving back but because there wasnt an incident nothing happens. so its only applicable if there is an incident and they will be punished.

regarding max' move, now the relaxed verstappen rule is in play the stewards thought it was not worthy of punishment or he was not wholly at fault/dangerous whatever. he made 2 movements but he barely moved under braking, only before. but again it is the discretion of the stewards and if the movement is dangerous rather then how many moves he has made. is there anything specific in the rules which say what max did was illegal ie 2 moves. also you could argue that some of the dan dare dives that he has done in the past which have caused drivers to leap out of the way were dangerous but he hasnt been punished. maybe this is the kind of racing we have to accept now. until something really serious happens.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

The FIA rule is simple: if you are on the racing line, and move off it in defence, then if you go back towards the racing line, you have to leave a car's width of space between your car and the edge of the track. In other words, you're still very near the racing line.

In Max's case, he was well off the racing line, to the left, covering the inside. When Ricciardo moved towards the racing line, Max wanted to defend that. And since he wasn't allowed two defensive moves, he should have gone onto the racing line completely. That would have maximized his grip, and he would have been more than ready for a swithback, should Ricciardo have to take off more speed than desirable.

But the point is that the "leaving space"-rule didn't come into it. The "no 2 defensive moves" one did.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

Quote:

But this is allowed in the rules, the only time that a driver can change direction after a defensive move is to go back to take the corner. Max didn't do that, he went towards the inside.

well ill take your word for that. i didnt know it was specifically allowed, rather then just not punished.

so what if you made this move back to the racing line just infront of the guy behind and it disrupts him and his downforce and he ends up hitting the car infront under braking. who is to blame then?

Quote:

As far as I remember, the rule goes something like: "Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."

You can get back on the normal racing line in order to take the corner, leaving enough space for the other car.

In this case, Max wasn't getting back in the racing line, he went on the inside line, not outside, which is the normal line to take the corner.

ah yes i do remember now after cars being forced off track by cars moving back over. ok well in that case there are plenty of times where drivers havent left a car width when moving back but because there wasnt an incident nothing happens. so its only applicable if there is an incident and they will be punished.

regarding max' move, now the relaxed verstappen rule is in play the stewards thought it was not worthy of punishment or he was not wholly at fault/dangerous whatever. he made 2 movements but he barely moved under braking, only before. but again it is the discretion of the stewards and if the movement is dangerous rather then how many moves he has made. is there anything specific in the rules which say what max did was illegal ie 2 moves. also you could argue that some of the dan dare dives that he has done in the past which have caused drivers to leap out of the way were dangerous but he hasnt been punished. maybe this is the kind of racing we have to accept now. until something really serious happens.

Ok, there are two different things, the sporting regs and the code of driving conduct on the circuit. As you said, the sporting regs have made the Verstappen rule disappear, they have also deleted a lot of the previous articles.

They did leave a little gem though: "27.2 Drivers must observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits at all times." This now contains the articles they deleted from 27.2 above.

Appendix L to the international sporting code contains chapter 4 - Code of driving conduct on circuits. In there, the second point reads:

"2. Overtaking, car control and track limits

b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left.

A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason.

More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. "

It is this last rules that Max messed. It doesn't say how subtle or not the change of direction is, you simply cannot change your direction twice.

Regarding Dan's divebombs, you'll find that I agree. It still doesn't make it his fault in this case, as we will never find out if he was going to make the corner or not.

Whether or not Ricciardo would have made the move stick is hypothetical. No-one can say for sure. But everyone can see that Max made two moves, which puts the blame squarely on him

Exactly, the illegality there was the double movement and the stewards should have taken him to the cleaners for that.

thing is this goes on all the time in various degrees of aggressiveness. ive seen loads of occasions where a driver has made a defensive move off the racing line approaching a corner, to try and discourage the guy behind from going inside, and then switched back to the racing line for corner entry. do they punish all them.

we had the verstappen rule under braking but this was 'relaxed' as it was thought it would discourage hard racing and end up with loads of penalties. the problem lies in that whatever the rules are there are too many grey areas and it is leaving the fia to interpret the rules depending on each incident. and we know they are an inconsistent bunch at the best of times. do the drivers actually know exactly what they can and cant in the rules? or is it just a gentlemans agreement between drivers reagarding on track manners, of which max magnussen and a few others dont give a **** about.

Quote:

But this is allowed in the rules, the only time that a driver can change direction after a defensive move is to go back to take the corner. Max didn't do that, he went towards the inside.

well ill take your word for that. i didnt know it was specifically allowed, rather then just not punished.

so what if you made this move back to the racing line just infront of the guy behind and it disrupts him and his downforce and he ends up hitting the car infront under braking. who is to blame then?

Quote:

As far as I remember, the rule goes something like: "Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off‐line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner."

You can get back on the normal racing line in order to take the corner, leaving enough space for the other car.

In this case, Max wasn't getting back in the racing line, he went on the inside line, not outside, which is the normal line to take the corner.

ah yes i do remember now after cars being forced off track by cars moving back over. ok well in that case there are plenty of times where drivers havent left a car width when moving back but because there wasnt an incident nothing happens. so its only applicable if there is an incident and they will be punished.

regarding max' move, now the relaxed verstappen rule is in play the stewards thought it was not worthy of punishment or he was not wholly at fault/dangerous whatever. he made 2 movements but he barely moved under braking, only before. but again it is the discretion of the stewards and if the movement is dangerous rather then how many moves he has made. is there anything specific in the rules which say what max did was illegal ie 2 moves. also you could argue that some of the dan dare dives that he has done in the past which have caused drivers to leap out of the way were dangerous but he hasnt been punished. maybe this is the kind of racing we have to accept now. until something really serious happens.

Quote:

Ok, there are two different things, the sporting regs and the code of driving conduct on the circuit. As you said, the sporting regs have made the Verstappen rule disappear, they have also deleted a lot of the previous articles.

They did leave a little gem though: "27.2 Drivers must observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits at all times." This now contains the articles they deleted from 27.2 above.

Appendix L to the international sporting code contains chapter 4 - Code of driving conduct on circuits. In there, the second point reads:

"2. Overtaking, car control and track limits

b) Overtaking, according to the circumstances, may be carried out on either the right or the left.

A driver may not deliberately leave the track without justifiable reason.

More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. "

It is this last rules that Max messed. It doesn't say how subtle or not the change of direction is, you simply cannot change your direction twice.

Regarding Dan's divebombs, you'll find that I agree. It still doesn't make it his fault in this case, as we will never find out if he was going to make the corner or not.

ok thanks for that. well if its in black and white that more then one change of direction is not permitted then it was obviously an illegal move. so the stewards are clearly interpreting the rules as and how they want even if they are clearly stated. no wonder we dont know what the boundaries are.

Then again, they have the telemetry and they may have thought that Dan was going way too fast there, so they reprimanded both of them, easy solution. Sometimes I wish they would explain their decisions rather than just announce them